Assessing professionalism in health profession degree programs: A scoping review

• Published in: Currents in pharmacy teaching and learning 2021-08, Vol.13 (8), p.1078-1098
• Main Authors: Smith, Kathryn J., Farland, Michelle Z., Edwards, Mary, Buring, Shauna, Childs, Gail Schneider, Dunleavy, Kim, Estrada, Amara H., Multak, Nina, Patton, Pamela R., Schentrup, Denise, Blue, Amy
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Assessment; Ethics; Health professions education; Professionalism; Teamwork
• ISSN: 1877-1297; 1877-1300
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cptl.2021.06.006

To identify and classify methods for assessing professionalism across health profession degree programs and identify gaps in the literature regarding types of assessments. The authors conducted a scoping review of articles published from database inception through 24 January 2020. Included articles described an assessment approach for professionalism in health profession degree programs available in full-text in the English language. Articles were classified based on profession, timing of assessment, feedback type, assessment type, professionalism dimension, and Barr's modified Kirkpatrick hierarchy. Authors classified 277 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Most articles were from medical education (62.5%) conducted during didactic (62.1%) or experiential/clinical curriculum (49.8%). Few articles (15.5%) described longitudinal assessment. Feedback type was formative (32.2%) or summative (35%), with only 8.3% using both. Assessment types frequently reported included self-administered rating scales (30%), reflections (18.8%), observed clinical encounters (17.3%), and knowledge-based tests (13.4%). Ethical practice principles (65%) and effective interactions with patients (48.4%) were the most frequently assessed dimensions of professionalism. Authors observed balanced distribution among Barr's modified Kirkpatrick model at levels of reaction (38.3%), modification of perceptions and attitudes (33.6%), acquisition of knowledge and skills (39%), and behavioral change (36.1%). The classification scheme identified in current literature on professionalism assessment does not align with International Ottawa Conference Working Group on the Assessment of Professionalism recommendations. Gaps identified were limited description of professionalism assessment during admissions, infrequent longitudinal assessment, limited use of methods for both formative and summative assessment, and limited reports of assessments applicable to interprofessional education settings.